CityLab (formerly Atlantic Cities) featured an article today titled, “Why Cities Should Be More Skeptical of New Cultural Centers and Expansions,” based on some findings of a book due to come out in 2015.
As I read the article, the findings sounded increasingly familiar. Indeed, the authors are the same people who wrote the Set In Stone study that came out two years ago. I posted about it here and here if you are interested in a summary.
The study looked at the impact of cultural arts facility construction/expansion to see if they ended up achieving the expected results in terms of attendance and economic impact. They also looked at what sort of impact the construction had on other arts organizations in the vicinity.
While both were interesting, I found the result of the latter investigation more intriguing because arts organizations really are never clear about who their competitors are, how much of a impact they have on each other and whether the net effect is positive or negative. Since so many of the results reported in Set In Stone were based on perception, I would really be interested to read the book to learn if the authors had been able to verify them with hard data.
The CityLab article reports that there are a number of reasons why cultural facility construction can often be detrimental to municipalities. Among them,
“The types of leaders who provide the passion and drive to build structures of this sort [major performing arts centers] are successful men and women who are accustomed to relying on their own experience and judgment,” the book reads. “They depend on what they might describe as ‘inside knowledge’—knowledge gleaned from their own experiences, and those of their collaborators’ experiences.
“What tends to be absent in their thinking, however … is ‘outside knowledge,’ such as what statisticians refer to as ‘the base rate’ regarding the distribution of projects that did not go as planned,” the book continues.
Other traps that civic leaders fall into include hindsight bias and consistency bias: People’s memories about decision-making for projects tends to change over time, and people tend to revise their memory of the past to fit present circumstances.
“While the Philadelphia Orchestra originally embarked upon a building project for the purpose of constructing a new single-purpose concert hall, the opportunity to make it an economic development anchor in downtown Philadelphia partly persuaded its leaders to morph the idea into something entirely different—a PAC [performing arts center],” the chapter explains. “Today, the reason for building the Kimmel Center is frequently remembered by its community as being to revive a distressed former industrial city’s downtown.”
The example of the motivational drift for the Kimmel Center seems to parallel the ever shifting rationale for the value of the arts- It makes kids better at math; makes an economic contribution; is a force for gentrification; attracts creatives – when the initial purpose was simply for the sake of the art.
I am sure this drift isn’t just limited to cultural facilities construction. I bet sports arena construction is sold in a similar manner. It is just a particularly good illustration that whether you want to fund a performance or the construction of a space to perform it in, the best, most true justification isn’t going to be persuasive enough for all those whose support you need.
